tricia griffith wrote:Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

As owner, I do my best to stay out of actual discussions about a crime.

The JBR case is the one expection.

Websleuths is a leader in true crime information as well as discussion. People come here to get information. It is imperative we deal with the facts. Not fantasy.

All I ask for are facts and a logical connecting of the dots. Logic and facts.

When I get time I will be going through the forum to make sure the JonBenet Ramsey forum is being held up to the high standards just like all our other forums on Websleuths.

The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone. Facts and logic. Very simple.

this is her qualifications

Host Tricia Griffith is a veteran radio disc jockey and owner of Websleuths.com and owner of Forums for Justice.org.

in other words she has ZERO qualifications in forensic science. she has no training in forensic fiber, trace evidence, DNA yet she claims

tricia griffith wrote:Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

this is 5-year-old Alie Berrelez who in 1993 was abducted from her apartment in Englewood, Colorado and found murdered

this is 6 year old Jonbenet Ramsey from Boulder, Colorado 1996

this is the scientific experiment(s) using the scientific method

this is panties

imagine 1 panties comes from 5-year-old Alie Berrelez who in 1993 was abducted from her apartment in Englewood, Colorado and found murdered

you then falsely claim to the RDI crowd that this pantie originally came from JonBenet Ramsey

and they found one sample of foreign male DNA via touch DNA method of scraping.

They immediately say the foreign male DNA is an artifact or the result of a factory worker sneeze. They say you can't prove it came from an intruder therefore it has no evidentiary value

you then inform them it came from 5-year-old Alie Berrelez panties and that foreign male tDNA was what led to her killer.

What scientific conclusions would you draw about the validity of RDI denialists claims?

Now, in a second science experiment, you present them 2 panties

1 panties is from 6 year old JonBenet Ramsey found upon her death, and the second pantie is from 5-year-old Alie Berrelez

You don't know which pantie is from which murder victim, but both foreign male DNA is obtained from touch DNA from the panties.

Would you accept on scientific grounds RDI denialist claims that the DNA obtained from Jonbenet Ramsey's pantie is of no evidence, that therefore there is no forensic evidence recovered in either pantie?

Is this a scientifically valid conclusion?

In the third scientific experiment, which DNA sample would have greater forensic value,

in one pantie the foreign male DNA was found mixed in with blood, from the victim's vagina, which pathologists says is consistent with sexual assault, which is clearly visible the girl pantie has no blood, the touch DNA of foreign male is solely based on invisible scrapings of the DNA

which sample of DNA is more likely to have forensic value of the killer?

6 year old JonBenet Ramsey or 5-year-old Alie Berrelez

in one pantie the DNA found mixed in the blood also matches a separate article of clothing, her pants, in 2 locations. In the other pantie, that touch DNA sample is the only foreign male DNA sample was identified.

which sample of DNA is more likely to have forensic value of the killer?

In one pantie he DNA found mixed in the blood also matches a separate article of clothing, her pants, in 2 locations in the context of a sexual assault, also had multiple types of unidentified fiber on her panties, clothing, ligature and tape

in the other pantie the DNA recovered, there was no clear evidence of sexual assault, and no other trace evidence, although the victim was found in a bag.

which sample of DNA is more likely to have forensic value of the killer?

does finding unsourced trace evidence increase or decrease the likely hood of the value of touch DNA?

science is about using the same objective standard

Are RDI able to come up with a scientifically compelling explanation that the touch DNA found on 5-year-old Alie Berrelez is compelling evidence which led to her killer, but that finding such DNA on Jonbenet, along with everything else, is not scientific forensic evidence?

So imagine you present them the results of 5-year-old Alie Berrelez but falsely claim it is Jonbenet Ramsey,

do RDI have a way of distinguishing when DNA found on panties is of forensic value and when it does not?